Stay of Execution on MacDonough Street
The second hearing about the future of 329 and 331 MacDonough Street, the two Stuyvesant Heights brownstones threatened with demolition after the collapse of a party wall last week, was held yesterday afternoon at 360 Adams Street. Here’s a report we received from a resident of the block: The Judge called in the lawyers and…
The second hearing about the future of 329 and 331 MacDonough Street, the two Stuyvesant Heights brownstones threatened with demolition after the collapse of a party wall last week, was held yesterday afternoon at 360 Adams Street. Here’s a report we received from a resident of the block:
The Judge called in the lawyers and engineers leaving the public in the hall to wonder what was happening. After an hour the public was allowed in and told that the engineers would have until Wednesday Jan. 27th to present a plan to save the properties. Mrs. Prince, the owner of 331 MacDonough St., has retained a lawyer and engineer in the hopes of saving her property. The Judge has told the public that he is aware of their concerns but, the issue will be resolved by the engineers and our presence in court on the 27th will not be necessary.
Meanwhile, we also contact the Landmarks Preservation Commission to get a better sense of their position and ability to act as advocates for preservation in this case. Here’s the response we got:
Members of our staff have visited the site, and are communicating extensively with the Department of Buildings about these important buildings. Under the Landmarks Law, no Landmarks approval is needed for measures the Department of Buildings must take to address public safety issues. We are advocating for saving as much of the buildings as is safely possible, while deferring to the Department’s engineering knowledge and experience in public safety matters. Landmarks and Buildings have a long history of working together to save historic buildings, and this case is no exception.
We’re also curious to hear how active a role (if any) Councilman Al Vann, who owns a house on the historic block, has taken in the situation. Can anyone tell us?
MacDonough Street Update 1/25/10 [Brownstoner]
Wall Collapse, Vacate Order, Maybe Demo on MacDonough [Brownstoner]
MM- I agree with everything you said at 10:24AM BUT – absolutly NO public money should be used to shore up these buildings – if Ins doesnt cover it, then the city should can fix them and then take the property – just like they do with negligent LLs who force the city to fix up their buildings.
Historical or not – one taxpayer should not be forced to preserve the landmarked property of another taxpayer.
Define “imminent.” They have been standing without any noticeable change since last week.
The issue that the DOB is trying to cover its ass on is whether or not anyone may get injured doing the repairs.
Apparently three engineers (albeit hired) have said they are not in imminent danger of collapse.
I bet the DOB guy is not an engineer.
Benson is anyone arguing that if DOB finds these buildings to be an imminent danger of collapse they shouldnt be demo’d?
I agree with you on that, but dont read anyone else to differ.
Assuming the buildings are deemed repairable by competent engineers, the decision to repair them should be a no-brainer. These are historic homes in an historic district. This did not happen on some forgotten block with houses falling down all over. Their structural integrity affects not only those two houses, but the entire row. Every effort that can be made, should be made to repair them. Insurance should NOT be the only criteria. Landmarks, Vann’s office, Historic Districts Council, the Landmark’s Conservancy, the Borough President’s office, the National Trust, the state, the feds, SOMEWHERE, there exist people and funding for this kind of action, in addition to insurance. If we aren’t going to put some teeth in our landmarked and historic properties policies, then why bother?
They should do everything to try and save this buildings….but I have to note that if you undermined the footings of a modern building (even a fedders building) the whole thing wouldnt come crashing down – nor would all the neighbors (since they dont rely on the others for stability)….these buildings are beautiful, but modern construction is far stronger and more stable.
Montrose;
Once again, I say: baloney.
Question: if the buildings in question were on fire, would you advocate that the local politicians show up on the scene, and make sure that the fire fighters be judicious in their use of their axes? “Hey Mr. Firefighter, don’t take an ax to that ceiling with those crown moldings!”
Of course you wouldn’t, but you are advocating just that course of action for THIS safety situation. I repeat: these buildings may be in imminent danger of collapse and in such a situation, politicians have NO BUSINESS butting there nose in. Just because you don’t see the imminent danger in a dramatic fashion, as you would with a fire, doesn’t make the situation different. Safety first!
If it is found that the buildings are not in imminent danger of collapse, then there is time to discuss how to save them.
According to Amzi, other engineers were brought in to look all agreed the buildings were salvageable. I think there were 3 and they all agreed.
Benson, politicians SHOULD be involved in these situations, because the average homeowner has about as much influence on agencies and policy as a handkerchief does in stopping the wind. Of course issues of safety supersede political will, but as seen in this case, especially when the collapse occurred, city agencies can rush to judgement unfairly, often going with what is easiest, cheapest, or least liable to cause them to take the longer, harder road to fix. And like it or not, the concerns of ordinary people are often ignored.
This situation is being handled in the right way NOW, because people made a stink, were smart enough to get lawyers to stop the bulldozers until independent study was done. Al Vann is not a stranger to bucking the system, it’s what made him who he is in the 70’s, and he’s been coasting on it ever since. This would have been a fine opportunity for him to be the advocate for his community, if only by getting in front of cameras and being a PITA, making sure every avenue was explored in trying to save these homes, and this block. Rabble rousing may be cheap theatre, but it is often affective in keeping the larger public eye on a situation and not letting the situation disappear. On the less visible side, he is also in the position to steer the homeowners, block association, etc in the right direction for any kinds of grants, programs, expertise that might be out there. That’s what local politicians are supposed to be there for.
“benson – it’s not just a safety issue”
Baloney. It IS a safety issue, and that takes priority over all other considerations.
“they can be sured up”
I think you meant to say “shored up”.
There are two issues here:
A) What the DOB is trying to figure out is if the building is in IMMINENT danger of collapse. If it is in imminent danger of collapse, it SHOULD be torn down, asap. Moreover, it’s best for the engineers to err on the side of caution in this regard. I want to know who else, beside the DOB’s engineers, is willing to sign their name to any decree that the building is safe from imminent collapse?
B) IF the building is not in danger of an imminent collapse, then the question becomes: “how much will it cost to repair?” and certainly the insurance companies will have a say here.